I may be the only one here with experience on both sides of the fence.
Victims need to be identified at least three different times, by three different sets of standards. First someone needs to see "evidence" of what meets their personal definition of abuse/neglect. Second the government agent needs to see "evidence" that meets the "official government agency" definition of abuse/neglect. And often but not always, third the court system needs to see "evidence" that meets either the civil or criminal definition of abuse/neglect.
While most kids do not know what abuse or neglect is, they are aware they are being treated badly, and usually that is is being done unfairly. But as has been said, most of them do not know they can complain, or how to complain safely so that the mistreatment stops as opposed to getting worse. A lot of them buy in to the notion that they deserve the mistreatment, and others are more afraid of what might happen if they were taken out of the situation than they are of receiving more mistreatment.
Caregivers can either voluntarily (the preferred method) agree to intervention services or be court-ordered to receive services. Depending on the interplay of so many factors that I will not kill the number of electrons necessary to just list them all the intervention services can range from what gunsmith experienced to not only termination of all residual parental rights but ongoing psychological and social work services after those rights are terminated. But the effectiveness all depends on the professional skill and dedication of the provider, the willingness of the parent(s) to accept and use the services, and the effectiveness of monitoring the case. Lots of folks will agree to accept services so as to avoid court intervention. The rules make it difficult to then bring court intervention - thank you Congress for writing that into the bill you wtote for federal funding of CPS! The sad truth is that most of the time both sides are working harder at finding ways to avoid additional reports being made than they are looking for ways to remedy the causes of mistreatment. Unless there is community interest in "protecting" the child (or persecuting the caregiver - that does happen and can be highly effective) it all falls on the shoulder of a caseworker who may have book knowledge of child development but little to nothing in schooling or experience in dealing with violence and its causes, and who must conform to their agenvy's notions of just how hard to push and how much time (which is money) to expend, as well as how hard the legal system will allow itself to be pressed.
The most effective treatment, which is prevention, is the hardest to get anybody interested in. Among all the other factors, it requires each participant to agree that they personally have a problem and that the problem does currently result in mistreatment of a child - not necessarily that they are physically abusing or neglecting medical care, but that they are doing something that causes/allows children to be mistreated.
On the other hand, moving the bar from broken bones and kids dying because parent did not take a case ofwhooping cough to the ER to "self esteem" at least lets society say it is getting softer and gentler. Unfortunately, as the stufy points out, it's not so much the actual numbers but the rate of mistreatment that has remained fairly constant. Why that is considered "newsworthy" is beyond my ken. That has been so since somewhere in the 1950s when golks started keeping track of the rate of mistreatment. What someone needs to do is figure out why. And then figure out how to make government intervention in that issue work better than the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. To be honest, I'm more afraid of what "meaningful" government intervention wll do than of leaving the status quo alone.
stay safe.
